That’s according to the home page of the school district’s website. But some — now former — teachers who may take the district to court would beg to differ.

Elementary teachers Patricia Johnson and Michelle Story said they were given no explanation at a school board meeting March 11 when they were told their probationary contracts would not be renewed for the 2014-15 school year. They were asked to resign but refused, they said — though the school district denies the claim — and were told to clean out their classrooms the next day with law enforcement standing by in what the teachers call retaliation for speaking out against a principal.

The two women said they have since been banned from campus and school activities, including their children’s graduation in May.

Now, they want answers.

Mothers first, firedteachers second

“This case cries out for justice,” the teachers’ attorney, Kevin Glasheen, said Wednesday morning, April 2, at a news conference in Lubbock.

Glasheen, a personal injury lawyer of Glasheen, Valles & Inderman Attorneys at Law, is taking the case on pro bono. He said his No. 1 priority is to regain access to campus and school activities for his clients. If the school board does not drop the ban, Glasheen said, his clients plan to take the matter to court and ask a judge to grant them relief.

The law firm provided A-J Media with a copy of a March 24 email from Superintendent Russell Schaub to Story in which he denies her request to attend, as a parent, “track meets, assemblies, talent shows, banquets and graduation along with any other activities that involve my children the rest of this school year.”

David Backus of Underwood Attorneys at Law, who represents Wilson Independent School District, explained in an email the request was too broad.

He said the district already has granted permission to one of the teachers on multiple occasions to participate in her child’s educational activities, adding there is no reason to assume they will be denied authorization to be present at graduation, barring any intervening matter.

But not knowing moved both mothers to tears Wednesday.

“My oldest is a special needs child, and he’s a senior this year,” said Johnson, who has taught in the district for two years. “I have fought for him. I have done everything in my power to get him where he is today and to support him and to see him graduate, and they’re going to take that from me.”

Story’s daughter is the valedictorian of her class and will deliver a speech at graduation.

“For me at this point, it’s more about being a parent,” Story said. Her son, who ran track, withdrew from the team when Story was told she could not attend his meets.

Retaliation concerns

Johnson and Story, who both teach second- through fifth-grade subjects, said they don’t know why they were terminated and banned, but they believe it’s related to anonymous letters they submitted to the administration about fearing for their jobs under Principal Brenda Prather.

The teachers said they later met with Schaub to express their concerns and were specifically told they would not be retaliated against.

They weren’t the only staff members who met with Schaub, they said, counting at least five others.

Since March 11, four other staff members have resigned, Johnson and Story said, hinting their cases are all related.

Calls to Prather and Schaub were not returned by press time.

According to a news release from the school district Tuesday, April 1, the school board determined it was “in the best interest of the students, parents and district to terminate” Johnson and Story at the end of the school year and “at no time did the superintendent or principal ask them to resign.”

The news release also states, “Since the terminated teachers’ presence at school created such a disruption to the educational environment, it was the superintendent’s judgment that the best interest of the district would be served by restricting the teachers’ presence on school grounds and at school activities. These restrictions, however, may be waived by the superintendent on a case-by-case basis.”

Due process not required

Because Johnson and Story were probationary contract employees, the school district is not required under Texas Education Law to give a reason for the non-renewal determination, Backus said.

Texas Education Code 21.2013A states: “The board of trustees of a school district may terminate the employment of a teacher employed under a probationary contract at the end of the contract period if in the board’s judgment the best interests of the district will be served by terminating the employment.”

This is the time of year when decisions like these are being made all over the state, Backus said.

Glasheen said due process is a red herring in this case and not the main issue.

“The issue is infringing on their First Amendment rights and then retaliating against them for standing on whatever rights they did have as probationary teachers,” he said.

However, Backus maintains the school administration has done “absolutely nothing” contrary to the law. Though he’s prepared for a lawsuit, Backus said he feels there are no grounds for one.

“Our claims are simply about these two teachers,” Glasheen said, clarifying that it isn’t an effort to take down the school administration. “This is just about outrageous injustice, arbitrary and capricious action by the school board. It’s petty, it’s retaliatory, and it’s illegal.”

And it’s “not fair,” said Johnson. “I want answers. I’m not getting answers that I desperately need. I don’t know why. I don’t know what I did, but I just want to know.”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Most schools encourage parents to be involved in the education of the students, former employees or not. Unless there is a valid threat to safety, why would a building owned by the public (which these former employees are) be open only to select parents and not others?

I know there's a whole other side to the story that WISD can't talk about for obvious reasons, but when you look at this on its face value, Public education in Wilson is not welcoming to the public.

Unfortunately, small school districts often resemble despotic regimes with the despots thinking that they can do anything they want, to include trampling on peoples' rights as afforded by the Constitution. Many times despots get their just desserts....I hope this happens in this case.

If this many people have lost their job under Prather then that is obviously going to be a concern to other teachers. I feel like something is missing here... Why would they say enforcement would walk them out of the building? Anyways, if they aren't going to be able to watch their children graduate they should just move the kids schools. Nothing is worth missing that time in your child's life. If Wilson is trying to keep parents out of the kid's lives that is a red flag that the school is sketchy!

Wilson has had others teachers resign, we only have 16 and may loose 8 before the year is up. The problem is Administration. One of these teachers taught my Grand Daughter and was wonderful. The only thing that stinks here is they spoke up on things that are wrong, very wrong, and were made an example of. Now other teachers are leaving. 112 people in a town for 498 have already signed a petition to remove administration, and 70 student (pre k -12) signed a petition. This town wants the admin gone, not all the teachers we are loosing. https://www.facebook.com/WilsonISDconcernedcitizens we have had town meeting with over a 100 people standing up for the teachers, the only problem with them, they are honest and love teaching and protecting kids. The schools attorney may get away with what is legal, but we will not let them get away with what is unethical and immoral